Army opens up 132 MOS to female soldiers
The Stars & Stripes reports that the Army is opening up 33,000 positions in 32 military occupational specialties (MOS) to female soldiers in April. But the good news is;
The newly announced positions open to women do not include MOSes such as infantry, nor do they cover special operations units. U.S. Special Operations Command is conducting its own assessment of how to open additional jobs to women. According to the timeline Panetta announced, the military has until 2016 to fully integrate women into the force.
Yeah, well, that’s what Panetta wanted, he’s not the secretary of defense now. Surely Chuck Hagel, who served in the infantry during the Vietnam War is a little bit smarter than Panetta, right? Wrong.
When asked about the opening of combat unit positions to women in a press briefing Thursday, Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel shares Panetta’s commitment to integrating female troops as much as possible.
I’ve yet to hear from anyone, anywhere, how this is going to improve the Army’s ability to face an enemy on the field of battle. I’ve read how this will improve women’s careers, but then is that the sole benefit? I thought the military’s function is to force our political will on people who might not agree with us. We’ve been fairly successful in that regard for more than two hundred years, so why are we changing it all?
Category: Big Army
I can tell you as a manager that it was a pain in the ass when I was unable to assign my female support Soldiers to certain positions within the SF Group I used to support. Female Soldiers could only serve at the Group Staff-echelon. That means my male Soldiers could not come up and fill billets at the Group level or take a knee after their third straight deployment because I could not push a female Soldier down to a BN. Opening up positions for females on Battalion Staff provides a lot of flexibility and opportunities for different types of growth in my Soldiers. It can work both ways when you give Leaders the option to manage their people simply based on competence, opportunity, and merit without regard to how many X-chromosomes they have.
I thought the military’s function is to force our political will on people who might not agree with us.
Silly Jonn-to the left the sole function of any aspect of government is to show that all human behavior can be absolutely manipulated. Then they can get on with their agenda of creating the most perfect society possible (of course, if it is not true that human behavior is absolutely malleable then that means that there are aspects of human behavior that are inherent and unalterable and their whole ideological position falls apart, which is all they have and thus that is too horrible to contemplate).
So they are “trying to force their will on those who might not agree with them”, but those enemies are ideological and internal, not foreign and geopolitical. Of course their battle is largely with nature and they will not win in actual reality, but they will do everything in their power to spin failure as success and defeat as victory, and given the large degree that they control the means of propaganda, they will largely be able to convince the gullible that up is down and black is white.
I’m in the minority here, but I also see the eventual integration of women into infantry positions as a long-term win for warfighting capability simply because demographics suggest it’s getting harder and harder to fill slots with people with the right temperament, general fitness, etc.
Sure, it has some downsides, and it’s a long-term issue – perhaps twenty years out, not something of immediate concern, but in that twenty years, looking at everything from obesity statistics to how technology may alter the battlegrounds and needs of soldiers on the front line, I don’t think it goes beyond the realm of possibility that effectively doubling the infantry’s pool of recruits is a good thing.
Under this administration, of COURSE career opportunities for females are far more important than National Defense considerations. Especially female officers.
They will open up the MOSes, but not raise standards for women to be equal to that of the men. Which will remain unspoken. “But, I can’t do that many push ups, or ruck that much weight, ’cause I’m a girl, so I should only have to do half of what the men do. But, be sure to pay me equally for my lower performance.” is hardly a ringing endorsement of equality.
I’m looking at the complete list, and the only job that I am not sure that women were allowed to serve in before the announcement were 12B Combat engineer, and 13Z Field artillery senior sergeant.
I am pretty sure that the rest of them were coed before this announcement.
Just two words…political correctness.
All the 25 series were already coed.
Let’s see how long it takes them to “reassess the standards” in artillery, you know when they have to hulk rounds into the cannon. What about armor when they have to crack a track?
I’m not saying that women can’t do it. I’ve seen some women that make me look weak, even when I was working as a personal trainer. However, there are the “girly girls” who won’t be able to do some of what is required in the job. They’ll be the ones to complain and get the Army to “make things even” for them (read: lower the standards so they can do the job on paper without really doing the job).
Uh…not really sure where they are getting info from….
The only MOS (enlisted) that are closed to women right now are 11B,11C, 19D, 19K, 13B, 13F, 12B and all 18 series
@3. As a rule, it’s not a good thing to identify something as being within the universe of possibilities and then effectively crossing one’s fingers and hoping for the best. That’s especially true when one is talking about lives. If doubling the number of troops in certain MOSs is the aim, let’s open up enlistments to any breathing adult over the age of 16. What the heck, it could be kind of fun having a geriatric BCT. I’d bet the males aged 45-65 would outperform the 20-something females in pull-ups, at least.
Heh, 92g and 92S …. Damned sexist Army..
And yeah, the wording “NOW open to Women” Pretty sure most on that list were already open….
That’s almost ironic (or would that be MOronic?).
NOW (National Organization of Women) open to women.
When and if the army ever has to fight against a “first teamer” with this type of mentality (the big lie)…it will make Task Force Smith look like a battlefield success.
I remember when I was AD (91-94)and they opened the 12C MOS to females, I thought that was a mistake. 12C is Engineer Bridge Crewman, 12B MOS with additional panel and float bridge training, a LOT of heavy lifting, especially with panel bridges such as the MGB (Medium Girder Bridge, better known as the Mean Green BITCH!), on it, the Upper Panel Cremwen have to pick up and hump a 200 pound piece with carrying handles, carry and lift it into place above their shoulders, and the Men in back have to work it up and down while the Pin Man inserts a 24″ X 2″ diameter “pin” in place and lock it. The Lower Panel Crewmen have to do the same with a 350 pound piece, and ditto, although they’re carrying and manipulating it at waist height. I wonder since they “integrated” that MOS, how many Male Personnel have had to do additional work because some “JANE” wanted to “ride the quota wagon” and play every stunt she could? YES, I’ve seen some outstanding, hard working Female Soldiers that pulled their weight and then some, but I’ve had to put up with some that bragged about how they pulled every stunt they could to get over, Saying “I think I’m pregnant” to skip out of going on a field problem, filing a Sexual Harassment Complaint after being ordered to strip and buff floors all weekend in the barracks as punishment,…
roflmao
A couple of days ago China reveled plans on building 4 more aircraft carriers.
Here we are talking implementing policy of feelings over results in our military.
But is the Chinese Military building them to last, or will they be “WalMart fall-aparts”?
Anybody know the MOS for Camp Follower, or Comfort Woman? Just say’n.
@16: They are preparing for war while we are preparing gender equality classes.
As for quality concerns regarding military stuff not working: http://defensetech.org/2014/01/24/report-navys-new-submarine-hunter-doesnt-work/
@18, I have absolutely NO doubt about that, one of the reasons I ETS’ed in ’94 was that we were spending more time in PC indoctrination classes than we were in Combat and MOS Training!